ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 150698.
DE GUZMAN vs. LANOT
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 150698 (Francisco S. De Guzman, Jr. vs. Henry P. Lanot and the People of the Philippines.)
Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals denying his petition for certiorari which, in effect, upheld the order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 264, [1] cralaw giving due course to private respondent's notice of appeal.
The present controversy stemmed from an information filed against private respondent charging the latter with libel committed as follows:
On or about early part of July, 1993, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, with evident purpose of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Francisco S. de Guzman, Jr. and with malicious intent of exposing him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause to be published copies of complaint-affidavit at the Municipal Hall of Pasig, Metro Manila, stating the following:
"Boy Anching de Guzman, who is a shrewed and dangerous politician"
and which complaint-affidavit contains false, malicious and highly defamatory statements against the complainant, that the said accused intended to convey, as in fact he did convey, in the said affidavit false and malicious insinuations that the said person is really dangerous and malignant and, therefore, wanting in high sense of integrity and honesty, trust and responsibility expected of him as a Vice-Mayor in Pasig, Metro Manila which imputation the said accused well knew was entirely false and malicious and without foundation in fact and, therefore, highly libelous, offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and reputation of the complainant and the said publication besmirch the good name, character and reputation of the said complainant as in fact the latter was exposed to dishonor, discredit and contempt and ridicule.
Contrary to law. [2] cralaw
The case for libel, on the other hand, arose from a complaint-affidavit filed by private respondent against Rolando Anselmo, Nilo Garcia and Nemesio Aguilar, Jr. for grave slander. Paragraph 17 of said complaint contained the subject libelous statement:
"X X X Aside from their selfish motive, they find pleasure and protection from their political allies, BOY ANCHING DE GUZMAN, who is a shrewed (sic) and dangerous politician, X X X" [3] cralaw
Copies of the complaint-affidavit were distributed around the Pasig City Hall area. At that time, private respondent was a councilor of Pasig City while petitioner was the Vice-Mayor. Petitioner averred that he was the only person known as "Boy Anching" in Pasig City, and the subject statement was intended to destroy and malign his name as Vice-Mayor of the city. Thus, he was prompted to file a complaint for libel against private respondent.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 264 rendered judgment finding private respondent Henry Lanot guilty of libel.
On
On
Petitioner immediately went to the Court of Appeals and filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
On
On
Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.
At the outset, we agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the petition filed before it was premature because the Court has repeatedly ruled that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before the remedy of certiorari can be availed of. The only exceptions are:(1) when the issue is purely a question of law; (2) where the error is patent or (3) the disputed order is void. [4] cralaw
Here, what petitioner essentially questioned before the appellate court was the correctness of the trial court's order giving due course to private respondent's appeal despite the fact that respondent failed to perfect an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Clearly, the question of whether or not private respondent was able to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is one of fact and not of law.
Likewise, petitioner imputed an error of judgment on the part of the trial court. We have repeatedly ruled that errors of judgment are correctible by appeal while errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari. [5] cralaw
Pursuant to our ruling that an error of judgment must be brought up by an appeal, it is clear that petitioner cannot now come to us through the simple expedient of claiming that there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the premises. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action of certiorari. Besides, the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and neither alternative nor successive. [6] cralaw
Not only did petitioner fail to file the required motion for reconsideration; he also failed to avail of the appropriate remedy which is appeal. Hence, the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. [7] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y.
CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 68-69.
[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 75.
[4] cralaw National Housing Authority vs. CA, 360 SCRA 533 [2001].
[5] cralaw BF Corp. vs. CA, 288 SCRA 267 [1998].
[6] cralaw Ligon vs. CA, 294 SCRA 73 [1998].
[7] cralaw Bernardo vs. Abalos, 371 SCRA 459 [2001].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
